I can't think of another way to put this, but: Sorry, you're completely wrong.

You cannot do depth perception on a 2D screen, it's literally impossible.


And wrong again! I can think of at least four methods of doing 3D off the top of my head and only one messes up the colours (the red/green glasses method). One of them dims the brightness a little (polarised light glasses) and the last two have no affect on colours or brightness at all (shuttered glasses and parallax barrier).
3DTVs and the 3DS use shuttered glasses and a parallax barrier respectively. I agree that for the most part 3D adds nothing to films/TV, but I think being able to tell how far away something is will be a very useful thing in games. Say you're using a grenade launcher or something and the grenades are fired in an arc. Knowing how far away something is would certainly improve your aiming. From what I've heard Kid Icarus on the 3DS makes good use of the depth perception.

I agree that depth perception is just about the only practical use of 3D in gaming, but there's a catch. Think about how you'll throw the thing that depth perception requires; whether it be a grenade at an enemy soldier, an empty Coke can into a bin or a spear into a wild boar. It will be by a little visualisation of the arc appearing on the screen, like grenade launchers always have in FPS. That renders depth perception pointless.

Or maybe it'll be by holding a button down for a certain amount of time, possibly accompanied by a little gauge as you'd see in golf games pre-Tiger Woods series. But that has no relation to how far the object is away, it's an in-game logic that 50% on the gauge (or 1.5 seconds holding the button) equals 8 metres in the game - again, totally unrelated to how far the object seems to be.

Again, this would be remedied if it had motion control that worked, so swinging your arm at a certain speed and at a certain arc felt like you were throwing something 8 metres away. But even then, motion control can't take into account how heavy the in-game item is. You'd have to swing a lot more to throw a full suitcase 8 metres than you would to throw a tennis ball 8 metres - again, depth perception is rendered useless because there's no interface method of actually utilising it. At least not one that isn't already used in 2D games, thus rendering it as just a visual gimmick again, unfortunately.

I tried the Nvidia built in 3D system with red/blue glasses on a couple of games on my new PC. While the effect does work, the red/blue 3D effect makes my eyes want to explode out of their socekets and not in the good way. I just couldn't play more than 5 minutes, then I just had to stop.

On the shutter glasses thing, I doubt I will be buing that tech. It already is obsolete for homeusers, as no glasses needed, full-hd 3D panels for TV and computers are hitting the stores hard this year.

If the tech hits through, then after a couple of years, when it's actually time to buy new display, I'll consider 3D, if the prize is right.

I disagree here. Normally when something fires in an arc like this, you need to aim higher to hit things further away. With depth perception, this would become even more of an subconscious thing. Again, this is something you'd need to get a feel for, but I believe it would become subconscious. Again, you'd need to get a feel for it. In the real world, you just 'know' how much effort you'd have to put in to throw a specific thing a particular distance. How? It's not an innate thing, it's something you've learned, albeit subconsciously. I think as long as you spent a bit of time getting a feel for the game, depth perception would be very useful.

right now is the very beginning of 3d. it will only get better. i'd bet a lot of people thought color was distracting or unlikeable when they first started producing color film because it didn't look that great or realistic.
in 5 years we'll all wonder how we were ever so enthralled by a 2d movie/game

You find the 3D feature useless , if you are a visually impaired ( half blind ) person .

I'm more concerned about this fact: They don't make good hollywood movies anymore (Ok, 1 or 2 good films per year, maybe 3?).
Same for AAA videogames nowadays.
I don't care about this stuff. It's junk for me, 3d or not.
I'll not give them mah money. That's the only thing *they* want from you, *they* dont care if the movie it's good, nor if the game is a bugfest without good gameplay nor if your eyes bleed because of this 3d awesome *NEW* technology.

MAKE A TINFOIL CAP FOR YOURSELF NAO

I only have experienced 3D movies twice :

Alice in Wonderlands : motion blur in 3D is horrible.
Clash of the Titans : 3D not impressive at all and horrible contrasts. But the movie wasn't meant to be in 3D in the first place.

Wait, are we talking about him directing the original, 1987 film, or the 2007 (scrapped) remake? I thought he left the remake because he was worried about the production studio's "future", and that he might not get paid.

I was talking about the remake. Sorry, I didn't make that clear. Aronofsky was still on the remake until last year. I bet you are right that the studio's future was a big reason why he left it, but I would still bet that if push came to shove and the studio told him it had to be 3D, he still would have left even if the studio's future wasn't in question.

Now that's just getting to be a matter of personal taste though. I admit that when I play most of the old NES games I used to play now, I wonder how I ever liked some of them. But I can still go back and play the great ones and enjoy them as much as any new games. Examples are Mega Man, Metroid, Zelda, Battletoads and Super Mario Bros. I recently played Cave Story and enjoyed it very much. I enjoyed playing Mega Man 9. I also still love isometric PC games.

As for movies, Pi was a black and white movie made in 1998, not in the 1950's. It would make my top twenty favorite movies. I'm not completely against 3D, but it's not what makes a movie great. At least not for me.

I do find 3D at the cinema impressive. The best case I've seen so far was Toy Story 3 since not only it was a great film but the 3D did successfully draw me more into the gorgeous world.

I also chanced the new resi evil film. Whilst I did hate the film, (action and music was decent though), I found the 3D quite cool. The opening credits did sell me on the 3D effect and the rain sequence had some tangible depth to it. What I felt was a game changer however was Tron legacy in IMAX 3D. It was a visual treat and I was enthralled throughout the film. Sure the film did sag in places but the sheer awesomeness of the world popped out in IMAX 3D If more and more teams concentrate on getting 3D in films and games to the level disney/pixar has, then I am excited for the future of it.

Home 3D could do with more work though, playing COBLOPS on the ps3 on a Samsung 3DTV was far, far too dark to be enjoyable. GT5 also had weird ghosting issues, cars and the environment all had white outlines whilst a white copy of them was displayed. Shrek 3D was cool on blu-ray though.

Glasses free 3D will be killer though, part of the reason for the darkness on the 3DTV were the glasses.

I'm still not sure about whether or nor I want to support Disney buy going to see Tron Legacy, after the way Buena Vista totally blew off all connection to Tron 2.0 when Monolith was bought out by Warner Bros. I mean, the plots both involve sons of the the original characters, and 2.0 even goes so far as to explain how Encom got the digitization process working again after the deresolution of the Master Control Program, which was able to run the billions of simultaneous calculations necessary to digitize a human being, and re-materialize said human. Monolith worked hard to make sure Tron 2.0 wasn't just a "cash-in" on the franchise, which Disney inevitably turns all good movies into.